arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Willingness to pay for shared mobility hubs: a stated choice joint-survey in four European cities

Anna Grigolon et al.

Networks and Spatial Economics2025https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-025-09671-5article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.46

What the paper says

Abstract This paper aims to assess the relative importance of different shared mobility hub design elements. A standardised survey was developed and applied among users and residents in different areas, including a stated preference experiment, to examine trade-offs between integration dimensions and the willingness-to-pay for different attributes of hubs. The results underscore a disparity between the attributes most valued by respondents and their willingness-to-pay for them, which holds significance in the planning and functioning of mobility hubs. Although elements such as information and digital integration were indicated as being prerequisites for a successful shared mobility hub, respondents are not willing to pay for it, indicating that these would have to be arranged by the government and/or transport operators. Respondents are more willing to pay for shared mobility and public transport within walking distance from one another or for placemaking strategies (such as services or landscaping), which are more evident elements related to the physical integration (and design) of hubs.

4 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-025-09671-5

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{anna2025,
  title        = {{Willingness to pay for shared mobility hubs: a stated choice joint-survey in four European cities}},
  author       = {Anna Grigolon et al.},
  journal      = {Networks and Spatial Economics},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-025-09671-5},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Willingness to pay for shared mobility hubs: a stated choice joint-survey in four European cities

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.46

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.37 × 0.4 = 0.15
M · momentum0.60 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.